Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Not long ago, I reread Stephen King’s how-to diatribe,On Writing. In fact, I read quite a few grammar books as a refresher and to help spice up my articles for Script Magazine. With respect to King, I’m sorry. The more I read his book, the more I disagree with him. His book is more pokable than the Pillsbury Doughboy. 1) A Thesaurus is actually a wonderful thing.Rogetscan INSPIRE breathtaking sentences! And 2) don’t even get me started on adverbs. King was horrifically wrong about adverbs. But the one area upon which we can agree is that timid writers suck the big one.

As I’m sure most of my brilliant readers already know, King trashed timid writers when it came to passive verbs and sentences:

Verbs come in two types, active and passive. With an active verb, the subject of the sentence is doing something. With a passive verb, something is being done to the subject of the sentence. The subject is just letting it happen. You should avoid the passive tense. I’m not the only one who says so; you can find the same advice in The Elements of Style.

(Oh, you mean thatlittle grammar bookthat’s SO pre-digital age and revised only 4 times since 19-frickin’-18? That one? Did you know that E.B. White was an essayist and writer for The New Yorker? In 1957, he wrote, “I felt uneasy at posing as an expert on rhetoric, when the truth is I write by ear, always with difficulty and seldom with any exact notion of what is taking place under the hood.” Even Strunk, the English professor, said, “the best writers sometimes disregard the rules of rhetoric. When they do so, however, the readers will usually find in the sentence some compensating merit, attained at the cost of the violation.” WHAT? You can break the rules? But back to King.)

Messrs. Strunk and White don’t speculate as to why so many writers are attracted to passive verbs, but I’m willing to; I think timid writers like them for the same reason timid lovers like passive partners. The passive voice is safe. There is no troublesome action to contend with; the subject just has to close its eyes and think of England, to paraphrase Queen Victoria. I think unsure writers also feel the passive voice somehow lends their work authority, perhaps even a quality of majesty. If you find instruction manuals and lawyers’ torts majestic, I guess so.

(But sometimes the passive sentence IS majestic. These are the times that try men’s souls. How are you going to improve upon that sentence? It’s perfect! If you wanted to make it active, you’d have to write, “We live in the kind of times that try souls.” Or maybe we should make the word “times” active since that’s what’s screwing with our souls? “These times try men’s souls.” Eh. “Times like these try men’s souls.” Ugh... We could make “souls” active. “Men’s souls must endure trying times as these.” Or how about: “Soulwise, these are trying times!” Oh puh-lease. Sorry! Back to King.)

I won’t say there’s no place for the passive tense. Suppose, for instance, a fellow dies in the kitchen but ends up somewhere else. The body was carried from the kitchen and placed on the parlor sofa is a fair way to put this, although “was carried” and “was placed” still irk the shit out of me. I accept them but I don’t embrace them.

(It’s not “was carried” and “was placed.” It’s “was carried… and placed.” Nothing wrong with that. Sorry! Back to King.)

What I would embrace is Freddy and Myra carried the body out of the kitchen and laid it on the parlor sofa. Why does the body have to be the subject of the sentence, anyway? It’s dead, for Christ’s sake! Fuhgeddaboudit!

(Funny that King writes “Fuhgeddaboudit!” as this kind of “offbeat,” rogue word was strictly prohibited by Messrs. Strunk and White. Slang and diction? Are you kidding? In fact, White decreed about thirty years ago that you can’t write slang because, “by the time this paragraph sees print, uptight, ripoff, rap, dude, vibes, copout, and funky will be the words of yesteryear.” Sorry, dudes! Back to King.)

…And remember. The writer threw the rope, not The rope was thrown by the writer. Please oh please.

May I ask a question? What if you’re writing a mystery and this is the sentence that reveals the killer? Wouldn’t you want to save that revelation for the end? “The rope was thrown by… THE WRITER!” No way! Damn writers! Or what if you’re writing a joke? “All of these outrageous, sexually depraved emails were written by… my mother.” Bwaah ha ha ha ha ha ha WOO HAAA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Or what if you used the passive voice to emphasize a passive character like the way Germaine Greer did inThe Female Eunuch: “The married woman’s significance can only be conferred by the presence of a man at her side, a man upon whom she absolutely depends. In return for renouncing, collaborating, adapting, identifying, she is caressed, desired, handled, influenced.” The structure may be passive, but there’s passion behind Germaine’s words.

In any case, I do generally agree about active verbs, although exceptions can be made, kinda like voice overs. Just because someone broke the rules, the world shouldn’t get hysterical. To King’s bigger point, I absolutely agree that timid writers suck. In novels, according to King, timid scribes tend to embrace a passive voice.

I’ve always wondered how this translates into screenwriting. Naturally, everyone knows you must keep your action lines in the present tense and use active verbs because you are in the moment with the characters as you are watching a film. But what are other qualities that would characterize the timid screenwriter?

I thought of 10 or so qualities.

THE TIMID SCREENWRITER

1) Avoids Drama, Tension, & Conflict – I believe the key to timid screenwriting is what King said, that the writer makes decisions so “There is no troublesome action to contend with.” This is what kills me about new writers. They dream and work hard to become a screenwriter, yet, they’re so reluctant to embrace drama. Hello? That’s screenwriting! And sometimes I think they deceive themselves when they’re writing happy warm scenes where all the characters are getting along because they’re feeling the happy feelings of the characters. And they assume the reader will feel those feelings as well. No, they won’t. That’s when the reader will be falling asleep because there’s no drama, tension, or conflict. That’s what a story is. FADE IN and something’s wrong. Or writers will just dip their toes into a conflict and then quickly get away from it, and I find myself telling them, “get rid of all that extraneous shit and dive right into the drama. That entire scene should be about the conflict!” Or in horror scripts, I’ll tell them to embrace the tension and fear and drag out the suspense to excruciating levels. That’s the fun of horror! There’s another aspect of avoidance. Some writers keep themselves distanced from the action, too. An important scene would take place off screen. Or we would have to watch important action scenes from a distance. Like a battle scene observed solely from a mountain or men going down into a tunnel filled with monsters or something, but we’d be watching the action only on TV screens in a newsroom. Put the reader in the middle of the action!

2) Passive Protagonists – Much has been written on this topic, and I’m sure my readers do not need this explained. Just as timid writers embrace passive sentences in novels, I think they also embrace passive protagonists in screenplays. This is where things are being done to the protag, as opposed to a protag being active and mixing things up. One of my cigar friends is in sales and he says he gets up at six a.m., works out, and then gets into his office to “make things happen.” That’s a good protagonist. There are exceptions to this rule. I have few problems with Forrest Gump or Benjamin Button. But I’d have to say that new writers should master the art of the active protag first before delving into exceptions. You need to be established before people will be willing to embrace an exception like that.

3) Weak Antagonists – Even pros make this mistake, which at times can be just poor decision-making. But sometimes, with new writers, I think they make certain decisions to weaken an antagonist because they want to be accepted SO MUCH as a writer that they water down the antagonist to make it easy on the reader. That’s crazy! Readers WANT to go on that wild ride. They WANT to feel that tension and suspense. Otherwise, what’s the point? Or maybe timid writers think that nasty antagonists will reflect poorly on their personalities because they want to be viewed as nice people. Fuhgeddaboudit! If you love stories, you must love a good strong nasty villain. Besides, the nastier the villain, the more satisfying the finale.

4) Excessively Pared-Down Dialogue and Action Lines – Some writers have read so much about “Show, Don’t Tell” that they’re almost afraid to write dialogue. Look, your characters need to be alive on the page! There’s nothing at all wrong with dialogue so long as it’s good dialogue, which for me means forgetting about realism and aiming for layers and subtext. Also, some writers pare down the action lines to keep as much white on the pages as possible. There’s nothing wrong with action paragraphs either, so long as there’s a reason for every single word you write and you avoid incidental actions. Follow Dave Trottier’s principlesof keeping the action paragraphs down to four lines or fewer. It’s all good so long as it serves an important purpose.

5) Wrong Emphasis in Action Lines – Sometimes I think that timid writers pay an extreme amount of attention to the action lines and descriptions of rooms and incidental actions as a way of avoiding conflict. This is about HOW the scene plays out. This is about WHAT happens, not so much all of the little details you’ll see on the screen. I once came across a script full of “maybes” in the action lines. “John (maybe) shoots Kate (or he stabs her or poisons her).” I said, “What the hell is going on with these actions lines?” Well, he had read an article that suggested adding “maybe” to the action lines because screenplays are a collaborative effort and this would invite collaboration. Are you kidding me? It’s your job to figure out the story! I told the writer to stand up, straighten his back, stick his chin out and write, “John shoots Kate.” There. Don’t you feel better?

6) Thin Plots – There’s nothing wrong with starting out on a simple plot. In fact, there’s wisdom in starting out simple. But that doesn’t mean you should stick with one plot and nothing else. To do this risks stretching your story too thin. Throw in a subplot or two.

7) Flashback Structures – With a few exceptions, I despise flashback structures. There was a time when I was actively writing reviews onTriggerStreetthat it seemed almost everyone had a flashback structure. I think this stems from a need to hook the reader early because they aren’t confident enough to think they can hold the attention of a reader through a normal 3-act structure. So they try to hook a reader by showing part of the ending first and then making that reader sit through 120 pages to actually see how the ending ends! Fuhgeddaboudit! Do the hard work. Master the 3-act structure.

8) Lack of Trust in the Reader – I touched upon this earlier, but it’s worth repeating. An inevitable sign of growth in a new writer (and we all go through this arc) is in the area of trusting the reader. Newbies and timid writers who haven't developed the discipline of trusting the reader tend to over-explain simple things in the action lines or they over-explain obvious reactions in characters or they indulge in on-the-nose dialogue to convey obvious emotions we all know that particular character is feeling. Over time, you'll learn that you only need to explain something once (or not even explain it at all) and then move on because you know very well that your readers are with you, will get it, and will appreciate you more for trusting them.

9) Copy Instead of Create – Creating is what makes screenwriting so much fun! And I think timid writers tend to pull from scenes and techniques and style choices in other successful films (thinking that it will make their own story successful) as opposed to taking a concept and making it your own. Just because a certain sequence or technique worked well in another film does not necessarily mean that it’ll work at all in the context of YOUR story. Sit back and ask yourself: “What’s the best way to tell THIS story?” “How can I tell this story in ways we haven’t seen before?” Brainstorm about ways you can be different.

54 comments:

Well, I disagree with you in general on the ON WRITING book itself, I've read it fifty or so times, probably more, and each time I find something new ... I like that King is a stylist yet he tries hard to really understand what he does from an analytical place (that's my take on the book) and allows his own weaknesses (doesn't trust adverbs, but occasionally will indulge in a juicy one) ... but I do think that, despite our difference on the book itself, you've hit the nail on the head with this post (and btw, you may like David Morrel's book on writing successful novels, it's more screenplay specific in a way) and I'd add my own number ten, from King ...

10 Ideal Reader ... King talks about writing for your ideal reader (or Ideal Audience, for us) and imagining how they'll be affected or moved by what he's done ... that's a real inelegant way of putting it (and King does so much better) but it's very important, I think, to think about your IR as a novelist and your audience as a screenwriter ... in other words, it ain't about you, it's about them ...

One-dimensional characters, or characters that are all exactly the same (and talk like the screenwriter). This is the phase I think everyone goes through at some point, where you think you can just automatically write real, compelling characters without really thinking about them in advance.

on #4 - I've become convinced that "Show, Don't Tell" is hurting many screenplays and screenwriters. Aspiring screenwriters (of which I am one... one of which I am...) throw that phrase around so much, that yes - as you point out in your article, they've begun to fear lengthy dialogue - but they also don't seem to understand that two characters interacting, talking about their past (in a well-crafted manner), future plans, thoughts on life - that, when done well, IS showing. For example, if "Before Sunrise" went up for peer review on a screenwriting site, it would get torn apart because it was "telling". Drives me crazy - that "rule" is being applied more and more, without a true understanding.

I...dunno. I read the book a few years ago, it's the single best "how-to" on writing ever written. I think he knows as well as anyone that you'll break the rules, but it was excellent. I think he aimed it more at sucky Patricia Cornwell-writers than anyone.

Ok, I'm brand new to the MM blog. I WAS linking select articles by MM to my blogsite in trying to help myself as well as other up and comers. I give up. There are no "select" views from MM. They are ALL good, valuable, and HUGELY educational. Comments by others are ALL good, valuable and HUGELY educational. The insights here are amazing no matter what the topic. Now I just bypass all the digital gyrations and say "I doesn't matter what you know or think you know or wish you knew about scripts, screenwriting, etc. Just go to MM and prepare to be educated." You folks are outstanding. THANK YOU MM!!!

I actually concur with King's advice about adverbs and passive voice in general. Obviously it's okay to break the "rules" when there's a good reason to. In working on my novel, I discovered another reason to use some passive voice -- to break up the monotony of starting sentences in a first-person narrative with the word "I".

For your missing tenth, two things spring to mind. One of the most common timidity errors I see in beginning writers, screen or novel, is not dramatizing the most major scenes. Like, the main character is attacked and the writer has him knocked out immediately instead of showing any of the fight, only to come to later when all the action's over. In a thriller! It's your JOB to deliver the THRILLS.

Likewise with huge emotional moments and sex scenes. Don't timidly cut away just when everything's getting going. Take it to the limit.

The second timidity I see not just in beginners but in published books and produced movies: Not forcing the hero/ine to face his or her greatest trauma and fear in the climax.

And I mean on an emotional and thematic level, not just physical. A good writer is brave enough to dig past those first superficial ideas about the final confrontation and find a place, a conflict, a heartbreaking decision, that really tests everything that the hero/ine is.

What's wrong with outrageous environments? Do we want to see every movie about a person in a cubicle? There are plenty of movies/TV shows where the strange environment was captivating and necessary for the film (Batman Begins, LOST, Star Wars).

Really interesting stuff. I just found this blog the other day, from the Raiders post, and I'll definitely be coming back often.

The On Writing book touched and appalled me as well, but for completely different reasons. King has a luxury as a novel writer that screenwriters don't have, which is concise format and structure. But, even still-- he says that he starts most stories without knowing how they're going to end! That sounds like a prescription for nightmares to me. And it's the same for him as well-- he said he got so stuck with the Stand that he became physically ill, then had to invent that cockamamie way to kill off half his cast with a random bomb. And The Stand often read like he didn't know where he was going, it's not like he-- or anyone-- has the talent to hide that fact. In fact, almost all of King's stories, with the notable and extreme exception of The Dead Zone-- read like they don't know where they're going.

That said, I found the book a relief in the same manner as the movie Adaptation and the documentary Comedian, which is that it reminded me that even people who are extremely famous and well-rewarded for writing still struggle with the process. It's just nice to feel like you're not alone when you're broken while breaking story, and that you're not the Salieri to their Mozart.

Er... King's luxury is that he's not beholden to concise format and structure. For a comment on a post about how to construct sentences, that may have been an epic fail. But if I want to struggle over exact wording, I'll close the browser and open the screenwriting program.

The sentences is not interesting or different if Myra and friend are coroners. Number 10.

Lack of clear motivation for characters, a lot of scripts I've read everyday people are maniacal to the point of murder, or have a blood lust (outside of horror) that is not explored. Or they are just too damn nice.

Like the woman who works in a homeless shelter and doesn't get paid. WHY!?Oh right, she's intrinsically good, she's just a great person. That's her motivation.???

Alexandra – Did it suddenly get hot in here? Wow. I need a glass of water. Thanks for that.

Christian – I read a script once filled with outrageous environments, and I told him, “Dude, characters come first.”

Trevor – I have no problem with outrageous environments but with newbies, there can be an over-focus on the environments to the detriment of characters. In fact, this reminds me of my Crossroads review.

All –Eh.

Hugh – Yeah, I completely agree about The Stand. Was he working on this during his drug days? Not sure. And there’s much I agree with him on. And, dude, that photo’s hilarious.

Thanks a lot for a bunch of good tips. I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it. ................................term paper writers-Essay Writing Help

This blog is very nice and informative. it is pretty hard task but your post and experience serve and teach me how to handle and make it more simple and manageable.-----------------------------------------------Dissertation Help | Custom Dissertation

Great article. There's a lot of good {information|data|info} here, though I did want to let you know something - I am running {Ubuntu|Fedora|Redhat|Mac OS X} with the {latest|current|up-to-date|circulating} beta of Firefox, and the {design|layout|look and feel} of your blog is kind of {funky|bizarre|quirky|flaky} for me. I can {read|understand} the articles, but the navigation doesn't {work|function} so {good|well|great}.

Thanks for {writing|publishing} about this. There's a {lot|mass|bunch|heap} of {great|solid|good|important} tech {information|info} on the internet. You've got a lot of that info here on your {site|website|web site}. I'm impressed - I try to keep a couple blogs {reasonably|pretty|fairly|somewhat} {current|up-to-date|live|ongoing|on-going}, but it's a struggle sometimes. You've done a {great|solid|big} job with this one. How do you do it?headache, headache types, toothache

About Me

I'm famous yet anonymous, failed yet accomplished, brilliant yet semi-brilliant. I'm a homebody who jetsets around the world. I'm brash and daring yet chilled with a twist. I also write for Script Magazine.